The basics:

• New ethics rule bars lawyers from initiating sexual relationships with current clients
• Existing relationships before legal representation permitted under the rule
• Rule also applies to members of an organization’s litigation control group
• Amendments take effect Sept. 1 as part of broader ethics rule updates

The New Jersey Supreme Court has adopted a new ethics rule barring lawyers from starting sexual relationships with clients they represent.

The July 23 approval came as part of a broader update to the state’s Rules of Professional Conduct. The addition allows relationships that predated legal representation. However, it prohibits members of the bar from entering into new intimate relationships with current clients.

Additionally, lawyers representing a company or other organization are barred from initiating sexual relationship with members of the client’s “litigation control group.” The court defines that entity as individuals responsible for overseeing the legal matters on which the attorney is working.

The amendments will take effect Sept. 1, according to the court.

The overwhelming majority of states already have a clear conflict-of-interest rule barring lawyers becoming sexually involved with people they represent unless the relationship predated the attorney-client relationship. Most of those jurisdictions regulate the conduct through ethics rules modeled on – or similar to – American Bar Association Model Rule 1.8.

No gray area

New Jersey began considering a rule change after retired Appellate Division Judge Ellen Koblitz sent a July 2025 letter asking the Professional Responsibility Rules Committee to recommend the state adopt a code mirroring Model Rule 1.8. She asserted that it was time for New Jersey to join the 40 other states that adopted some version of the rule.

Kobiltz also expressed concern that regulating the conduct on a case-by-case basis under existing conflict-of-interest rules was insufficient. She urged the PRRC to recommend a bright-line approach for the behavior, according to a report.

The committee then spent a year reviewing the proposal before formally recommending it to the court.

Along with soliciting public feedback on the rule, the PRRC also debated how the prohibition should apply in various circumstances, such as corporate representations and preexisting relationships, according to a report.

During the public comment period, the New Jersey State Bar Association came out against the adoption of such a rule.

The organization has argued that it could be difficult to apply a blanket prohibition in nuanced situations. It highlighted examples such as on-again, off-again romantic relationships and scenarios involving organizational clients.

The NJSBA maintains that the state’s existing ethics rules already allow for attorneys to be disciplined when personal relationships compromise their professional obligations.

A ‘well-intentioned’ rule

The July 23 amendment also includes:

• Expanded fee disclosure requirements and online disclosure obligations for attorneys who are ineligible to practice law
• Clarifications to ethics rules governing confidentiality and conflicts of interest involving public entities

The justices did not issue an opinion along with the order. A spokesperson for the New Jersey Supreme Court declined to comment.

In a statement to NJBIZ, NJSBA President Norberto Garcia said, “While sexual relations with a client are never a good idea and the rule is well-intentioned – such a rule could be overly rigid, problematic to investigate and fails to account for the complexities of attorney/client relations.”

[S]uch a rule could be overly rigid, problematic to investigate and fails to account for the complexities of attorney/client relations.
—Norberto Garcia, president, NJSBA

“The Association believed that maintaining the existing rules that have been applied on a case-by-case approach that focused on the effect of the relationship on the representation would better address the nuances and limited exceptions that inevitably arise, while continuing to protect clients and preserve the integrity of the profession,” he said.

“Although the Supreme Court ultimately reached a different conclusion and adopted the rule, the NJSBA respects the Court’s decision and extends its sincere thanks to the Court, and the Professional Responsibility Rules Committee, for providing the opportunity to present its views during the rulemaking process,” Garcia said.